13 open items (Mike, Alexander, SergeyL) - we're not going to do some of these

Mike: Azigo is going to contribute a new implementation of the STS

Paul: Are we going to do this for 1.1?

Mike: It will likely take 2 weeks to get the work done. I think we're better off leaving this to 2.0?

Paul: Can you review and push to 2.0 a number of these open bugs currently in 1.1M9

Mike: the code for most of the solutions is done; this is mostly about documentation; Most of these involve wiki pages changes and build process changes, etc. Once one of them is done, the rest should fall pretty quickly behind it.

Could we design it so that the individual patient (and doctors) have their own identity and can query attributes of their own personal data store, they can have have visibility into where the data comes from.

People, esp. WRT medical records, really want a sense that they are in control. One of the main drivers of this is to give the individual patient has an audit trail. What organization accessed what data when and under which policies.

I'm looking to learn more about Higgins.

David: are there other initiatives in the identity industry around giving.

Paul explained that h:correlation is different from the stronger owl:sameAs

Joe: asked if $is and it's use to correlate i-name, i-number, etc. is that the same as h:correlation?

Paul: I think that's closer to h:synonym

Joe: in general XDI tries to use fewer verbs

Paul: Higgins too. We try to invent as few as possible. Not only that but we only use a subset of rdf, rdfs, and owl so as to make it easier for context provider implementers who are NOT using rdf technology.

Joe: the impression I get of XDI is that some distinctions are made by surrounding context

Paul: the implication of analysing surrounding context is that performance (during mapping) would be reduced

We updated [3] as we discussed $is$a vs. rdfs:type and rdfs:subclassOf as well as XDI comments (in non-JSON-serializations) vs. rdf:comment